Stuff reports:

This week it emerged that while the Tax Working Group has disbanded, Cullen has had his contract extended by the Government.
Cabinet papers show Cullen was to be paid $1062 a day in his role as chairman of the TWG.
“We extended his appointment as the chair of the TWG to 30 June because we were aware there would be extended public discussion on the report, and this has played out,” Finance Minister Grant Robertson said in a statement.

This is outrageous. The TWG has completed its work. A final report went to Government in February. It has been disbanded.

To have taxpayers continue to fund Dr Cullen in a role which no longer exists is bad faith, especially that he is spending all his time attacking statements from National MPs.

A Cheryl Carr did an OIA to the University of Auckland asking:

• The commencement date of the sponsorship and the proposed duration of the sponsorship of Newsroom
• The total financial sponsorship received by Newsroom
• The contractual arrangements with respect to any benefits the University of Auckland would receive in consideration of the agreed sponsorship.

The response was to only confirm the dates and refuse all other information as being subject to an obligation of confidence.

That is an outrageous response from a taxpayer funded organisation and I have the decision is appealed to the Ombudsman.

The University is not a commercial business. There is public interest in knowing why they are giving a news site money, and what they get in return for it.

Danyl Mclauchlan writes:

The Green Party has put forward a members bill which, among other things, advocates lowering the MMP threshold from 5% to 4%. Let us set aside the terrible, terrible optics of a political party that is part of the government, and hovering just above the 5% threshold in the recent round of polls – and which routinely under-performs the polls on election day – attempting to alter the electoral system to its own advantage and consider the 5% threshold itself.

The self-interest is indeed massive.

In terms of performance, here is the difference between their result and the last ONCB poll:

• 1999: -0.8%
• 2002: -1.0%
• 2005: +0.3%
• 2008: -2.3%
• 2011: +1.1%
• 2014: -1.3%
• 2017: -1.7%

So if the Greens are at 6% in the polls, it is quite possible they’ll end up under the 5% threshold in an actual election.

Our version of MMP was copied from the German system and the threshold was there to prevent the rise of extremist political parties, something that nation was apprehensive about for obvious reasons. That didn’t seem like a realistic fear for New Zealand so copying such a high threshold seemed unjustifiable. But now that we’re seeing a global rise of extremist parties, a fascist government in Brazil, etc, it no longer seems like such an abstract fear.
But my main problem with lowering the threshold is that it will also probably save New Zealand First, and it will make the New Zealand First model of politics so much more viable.
This is a model in which you fundraise from exploitative, extractive industries (fishing, forestry), campaign on populist issues (Peters’ flagship policies in 2017 were lower immigration, a referendum to ditch the Māori seats and to remove GST on fruit and vegetables), ditch all of your policies and issues as soon as the election is over, and use your position in the political centre to maximise your personal power.
It means Peters gets to operate as a de facto co-prime minister, he gets to veto any attempts to regulate his corporate donors, he gets to unilaterally change our long-standing foreign policy towards China without bothering to tell the actual prime minister, let alone the Cabinet, his deputy gets given three billion dollars to just give away to whoever he wants, and none of this has any mandate from the public whatsoever.

An excellent description of NZ First.

The 5% threshold hasn’t saved us from Peters but this is because he’s one of the most brilliant politicians the country has ever seen. His model is a very successful hack of the MMP system, but you have to be Peters to pull it off – otherwise everyone would do it: after all, you get near total political power with virtually no votes.
But Peters was kicked out of parliament after his last shambolic tenure in government and, based on the current polls, he’ll be wiped out at the next election, so it is (hopefully) not a sustainable model, even for him. The 5% threshold is what protects us from countless imitators reproducing the hack and wrecking our government. That is what the fence is protecting us from. We’d be fools to lower it.

A fair argument.

The Herald reports:

The Government has repealed a law that Justice Minister Andrew Little has described as “medieval, archaic and unjust”.
Parliament last night unanimously passed the Crimes Amendment Bill, which repealed the “year and a day” rule as well as axed laws prohibiting blasphemy and imposed harsher sentences for would-be livestock thieves.

Good on the Government for doing this. While not the highest of priorities, it is a good thing to get rid of archaic laws, especially ones that had a potential chilling effect on freedom of speech.

Audrey Young writes:

It is not often that Simon Bridges gets the better of Jacinda Ardern in Question Time.
It is even more rare for Bridges to be applauded by his own side. 
But both happened today – until Speaker Trevor Mallard intervened.
Ardern’s loss of form was Bridges’ capital gain as the National leader and the Prime Minister went head to head over a comprehensive capital gains tax (CGT) proposal.

National’s research unit had done their homework and found a quote of Ardern’s from Mike Hosking’s show last week in which she had pressed home what she sees as an empathetic advantage.

I presume done their homework means they read Kiwiblog 🙂

Ardern had disputed the NewstalkZB host’s claim that none of the cabinet had experience running a small business.
She herself had run a small Non-Government Organisation (NGO), she had said.
“What was that NGO,” Bridges asked in the House.
In her lengthy answer, an irritated Ardern failed to utter the answer, which was well known to everyone.

Bridges: “Is the NGO she spoke of the International Union of Socialist Youth?”
Ardern: “The member knows how to use Wikipedia – well done.”

Rather tetchy the PM on this topic.

And the next ad-lib question almost earned Bridges a standing ovation from his own team: “Has talking to international comrades helped her with her small-business policy development in New Zealand.”
She protested amid the happy uproar at Bridges’ question that she knew what it was like to hire and fire people, perhaps more than Bridges had as a Crown prosecutor.
It was Bridges’ moment but Mallard was having none of it. There are no rules for when applause is tolerated and when it is not. That is decided by the mood of the Speaker who clearly did not like National ganging up on her.
Mallard: “We’re not going to have that sort of seal-like approach in this House.”

If the PM can’t handle question time by herself, that says something.

The Hansard exchange is here:

Hon Simon Bridges: When she told Mike Hosking last week and this morning that she’d run a small NGO that helped her understand small business, what was that NGO?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I did not tell him that this morning.
Hon Simon Bridges: When she said last week on Mike Hosking that her running a small NGO had helped her understand small business, what was that NGO?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I spent more time talking about the fact that my first jobs were all in small businesses. The point that I was making at that time—and actually, I continue to make—is that, as a Government, we are considering all of the issues that have been raised. That includes whether it be residential rentals, whether it be small business, whether it be KiwiSaver.
Hon Simon Bridges: Is the NGO she spoke of the International Union of Socialist Youth?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member knows how to use Wikipedia—well done.
Hon Simon Bridges: Has talking to international comrades helped her with her small-business policy development in New Zealand?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, the Prime Minister will sit down. We’re not going to have that sort of seal-like approach in this House. It’s a final warning, and I think Mr McClay will be the first out.

I am sure all the small business owners out there will be reassured by the fact the PM once presided over the global order of young socialists.

Newshub reports:

Vernon Tava wants his new party to “always be in Government” regardless of who’s leading it.
Mr Tava, who’s previously challenged for the Green Party leadership and stood to be a candidate for National, is setting up a new vehicle for his political ambitions – the Sustainable NZ Party. …

“It’s an independent party – that’s the point and it has to be. It’s very important to me that that’s what it is. So really, the point is that people have a party they can vote for that can always be in Government.”

This is a key selling point for those who want better environmental outcomes. The Greens can only influence Government when there is a Labour-led Government.

The Sustainable NZ party is saying they want to be in Government regardless of whether it is National or Labour, so they can be delivering on their environmental priorities all of the time, not just some of the time.

The Herald reports:

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark is set to launch her own foundation for independent research into major issues of the day, including climate change and drug policy reform.

I’m think this is a good thing. We need more thinktanks, not less. I may not agree with much of what they say, but public policy is enhances by having thinktanks doing good research in topical areas.

The foundation’s board is chaired by her husband Peter Davis, a public health specialist.
The board also includes Clark’s long-time friend and confidante Joan Caulfield, who served as her electorate agent, as well as accountant Geoff Pownall and lawyer Simon Mitchell.

It is unclear whether this is the same Simon Mitchell who once worked in Clark’s electorate office and bought the painting at the centre of ‘Paintergate’ controversy.
Clark had signed a painting that she had not painted, and it was auctioned for charity. Mitchell bought the painting from the original buyer and then gave it to Caulfield, who destroyed it.

It is the same Simon Mitchell.

The foundation is partnering with the Auckland University of Technology and The Policy Observatory while the Foundation becomes established.

I’m not quite sure what partnering means. Does it mean funded by? While I’m supportive of the new foundation, I’m not supportive of taxpayer money going on it.

Clark is a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which promotes drug policy based on people’s health and safety.

On drug policy I am broadly in agreement with Helen Clark.

Errington said that the foundation needed to fundraise, and believed the funding so far had come from Clark herself.
“We’re just trying to get off the ground. Anyone who is keen to be part of it should feel free to approach us.”

That sounds like there isn’t taxpayer funding, which is good.

The foundation’s website is here.

TVNZ reports:

Climate Change Minister James Shaw has not ruled out the use of genetic modification – however, he says it should be a question for the public and he would be led by the science around the issue. 

This is a huge policy change by the Greens co-leader.

The Greens previously have been against all genetic modification. Shaw is now saying he would be led by the science.

Luckily the science is clear. Sir Peter Gluckman said that the science is settled that GM is safe.

I look forward to hearing from other Green MPs that they will also be led by the science on GM.

The Treasury Board President, Jane Philpott has resigned saying:

I have been considering the events that have shaken the federal government in recent weeks and after serious reflection, I have concluded that I must resign as a member of Cabinet.
In Canada, the constitutional convention of Cabinet solidarity means, among other things, that ministers are expected to defend all Cabinet decisions. A minister must always be prepared to defend other ministers publicly, and must speak in support of the government and its policies. Given this convention and the current circumstances, it is untenable for me to continue to serve as a Cabinet minister.
Unfortunately, the evidence of efforts by politicians and/or officials to pressure the former Attorney General to intervene in the criminal case involving SNC-Lavalin, and the evidence as to the content of those efforts have raised serious concerns for me. Those concerns have been augmented by the views expressed by my constituents and other Canadians.
The solemn principles at stake are the independence and integrity of our justice system. It is a fundamental doctrine of the rule of law that our Attorney General should not be subjected to political pressure or interference regarding the exercise of her prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases. Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matter and in how it has responded to the issues raised.

This is very significant as the resignation doesn’t even try to pretend it isn’t about the interference with a prosecution. She has basically said she can not defend what Trudeau said, so she must resign.

ABC reports:

In 2015, the US Government declared Taylor a global terrorist after he encouraged attacks in Australia and New Zealand and appeared in an IS propaganda video.
He also posted a YouTube video telling followers to “commence your operations, even if it means you have to stab a few police officers, soldiers on Anzac Day and so be it.”

Surely that by itself should see him jailed if he returns.

He says one of his regrets while living in the so-called Islamic State was being unable to afford a Yazidi slave.
“I would have like to have one, but I never got to,” he said.

Yes this is his big regret. He couldn’t afford a slave!!! I vote we skip the trial.

Taylor said he believed if he owned a slave he was entitled to do whatever he wanted, and he didn’t care that the women were taken forcibly as slaves.

He just needs a bit of kindness and he’ll be rehabilitated right.

“I’m sorry for causing too much trouble and being a bit hot-headed and flamboyant in my approach… I don’t know if I can go back to New Zealand, but at the end of the day it’s really something I have to live with for the rest of my life.”

He thinks supporting ISIL is just a bit flamboyant!

But he does of course have people who want to help him get home. The Greens! Stuff reports:

Green Party Justice spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman says if New Zealand is presented with the opportunity, we should cooperate in bringing home the Kiwi being held captive in Syria by Kurdish forces, Newshub reported.

The Greens want Canadian speakers banned from NZ, but think we should help a guy whose major regret is he couldn’t rape a female slave from returning home.

New Zealand should do the bare bare minimum under international law with regard to Taylor. We are not allowed to refuse him entry, but we certainly should not assist him.

Stuff reports:

Her comments come as the preliminary results of a victims survey reveal the system was “letting victims down”.
More than 600 people participated in the survey that asked victims of crime for their their views on the criminal justice system, what works and what doesn’t, and how they believe it can be improved.
Fifty seven per cent of people said that they either had a poor or very poor overall experience of the system, while 22 per cent said they had an average experience.

That’s an appalling result. Not entirely surprising as the system is based on the alleged criminal, not the victim.

Some of the experiences will be because of light sentences or even getting off. But often it is other stuff such as their sentencing comments being censored because they are too inflammatory etc.

Meanwhile, new research released by Victim Support showed the majority of serious crime victims lack faith in the justice system, felt justice was not served in their case and commonly reported they felt they had no genuine voice in the justice system.
About 59 per cent of victims interviewed told researchers they had no faith in the justice system and 68 per cent felt justice had not been served in their case.
This was despite 73 per cent of cases in the study resulting in a guilty verdict and 52 per cent resulting in imprisonment of the offender.

These figures will only get worse if we move to a catch and release policy in order to artificially keep prison numbers down.

Newshub reports:

Mark Taylor, the “Kiwi Jihadist” has been jailed in a Kurdish prison after surrendering after life became unbearable, reports say.
ABC News Australia reported the New Zealander, who had lived with the extremist group for five years, handed himself over after leaving because of lack of resources.
“There was no food, no money; basic services were pretty much collapsed. I was in a pickle myself and had to make a final decision, which was to leave,” ABC News reports

Long may be stay in the Kurdish prison. The last thing we want is him back in NZ.

A police officer writes in Stuff:

I graduated with a wooden baton, a set of handcuffs and a desire to make a difference. Now I must wear a stab proof vest in the summer heat, carry pepper spray, a metal baton and a Taser. Why? New Zealand has changed.
In nearly 30 years of policing, guns have gone from a rare find, worthy of high fives in the office, to commonplace. It was a slow creep.

I am sure this is true, but would be interested to see official data on this such as number of firearms charges a year over last three decades.

Most of those opposed to arming police fall into three categories: Naive, unrealistic or nostalgic. They don’t live or interact with that side of the tracks.
“Just call the AOS” is nice in theory. But policing is unpredictable, every door knock, every car stop presents danger. We can’t cordon and contain every part of our days.

I agree you can’t have police officers rely on the AOS constantly. But the current policy of having firearms available (in the car) but not carried seems to work okay. Again I’d be interested in data where harm has occurred because officers had to get guns from their car rather than have them on hand.

I must admit listening to “bush experts” saying what police should and shouldn’t do, from people who have and never will put themselves in harm’s way, is a bit hard to swallow.
If seeing a cop with a pistol makes you feel unsafe, try walking up to a car full of gang members who hate you for no other reason than your uniform. You’re not getting punched, kicked, stabbed and put in danger in your job, we are.

Very true. Frontline cops have one of the unsafest jobs in New Zealand. I’m grateful to them.

General arming is halfway here already and people didn’t notice. Health and safety demands we must protect our staff and the cold fact is we have been an armed police for quite some time. It’s no coincidence we are not being murdered like we were and armed criminals are being shot more often.

Which is good, and why I support arms being available in cars.

The Canterbury arming order only moved the pistol from the car safe to the hip. But that could be vital if you’re caught halfway between your patrol car and a meth psycho’s vehicle when he steps out with a shotgun. Suddenly a gun in the car might as well be at the station.
Those who think we cannot be trusted with firearms probably thought the same thing about Tasers. If you believe a pistol on the hip will make us a version of the worst police force in the United States, you’re clearly not among the nearly 80 per cent of Kiwis who have trust and confidence in us, which is sad.

I have no problem with the Canterbury order as a tactical response.

I would rather not have all Police routinely carry sidearms. Nothing to do with not trusting them, but I think it would be an unwelcome societal change.

The status quo of having arms in vehicles, and allow District Commanders to order temporary general arming seems good to me. A change to regular arming would need some strong data on why it is necessary.

Stuff reports:

Christchurch MP Ruth Dyson is calling it quits after 27 years in Parliament.
Dyson announced in an email on Sunday she had decided to not seek re-election as the Labour candidate for Port Hills in 2020.
“After what would then be 27 years in Parliament, I have decided to pursue other challenges in my life (but I haven’t yet determined what they will be).”

Dyson will be a big loss to Labour. She is one of their most politically competent MPs. Her politics aren’t mine, but in my dealings with her I’ve found her very professional and effective.

She is a popular local MP. The ratio of her electorate vote to party vote was 137% meaning for every 100 votes Labour got, she got 137. That is the third highest for ratio for a Labour MPm after Ardern and Nash.

Port Hills has a majority of 7,916 which is generally regarded as safe. But National got around 500 more party votes. If Labour doesn’t select a strong candidate, the seat could be competitive.

Stuff reports:

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff will seek re-election in October, chasing a second term. …

Goff has also said that next term he will do rates increases of 3.5% a year, higher than the 2.5% of last time.

And of course even that 2.5% was a porky, as he introduced several targeted rates and a petrol tax, meaning that overall ratepayers had increases of way beyond 2.5%.

Goff has also said he’ll find a billion dollars of efficiencies if re-elected. Off memory his track record in his first term is around $400,000 of true efficiencies so I wouldn’t count on it.

The Herald reports:

The Green Party is urging Justice Minister Andrew Little to adopt a Greens members’ bill which would ban foreign donations to political parties.

They already are banned effectively. There is a de minimis limit of $1,500. Above that they are banned. If you want to ban them for less than that, just consider what that means – you will need proof of residency everytime someone buys a raffle ticket, donates $5, attends a dinner etc.

The amount of foreign donations under $1,500 is trivial – it would be at most 0.01% of total donations. This is a red herring.

You could make a case for a slightly lower de minimis limit such as $500, but a total ban would be impractical.

As well as cracking down on foreign donations, the bill would also overturn a ban on prisoner voting, enable Māori to change roll types at any time and lower the MMP threshold to 4 per cent.

Enabling Maori to change roll types at any time allows gerrymandering of seats. I am surprised the Greens want to introduced gerrymandering to NZ. It would allow people to transfer backwards and forwards between the general and Maori roll, based on which seat they think is most marginal. It would mean seats would be less likely to have the same electoral population.

And lowering the threshold to 4% may have merit, but should only occur either by consensus of parties in Parliament, or a referendum. This looks like the Greens worried they won’t make it back and wanting to change the law to help them.

Personally I’m sick of MPs trying to change the Electoral Act to favour themselves. I think it is time for Nick Smith’s suggestion that we entrench the entire Electoral Act so not a single clause of it can be amended without a 75% super-majority in Parliament. This would stop the US style winner takes all politics, and ensure any future changes were ones that clearly benefits the public, not just one party or one side of politics.

Entrenching the entire Electoral Act would require MPs to work together to do changes.

Stuff reports:

Czech drug smuggler Karel Sroubek has lodged an application for residency in his true identity.
Earlier this month Stuff reported he had obtained a passport in his real name, but had yet to provide it to an Immigration New Zealand (INZ) office with the appropriate paperwork to have residency considered.
INZ officials have confirmed they have since received a copy of Sroubek’s travel document, in his true identity, with the appropriate paperwork. This was now “being considered”.

If Sroubek ends up being able to stay, it will be thanks to ILG.

Stacey Kirk writes:

What’s laden, but never full. Pure, but never clear. Given, but never received?
Why, the Government’s answers to most questions of general accountability, of course. 
Expanded, it may read: What’s laden with hyperbole but never full of any substance, pure of intention but never clear with solutions, and given but never in a way where any real information is received.

A good description of the Government.

It emerged on Thursday that the Treasury advised Jones against giving a $10 million loan to private firm Westland Milk, on the basis the company couldn’t get a bank loan and thus the Government ran the risk of looking like a “lender of last resort”.  …

A spokesman for Jones said: “The PGF, when granting a loan, is able to consider wider benefits than a commercial bank would, such as wider regional development and employment outcome.”
The number of jobs bandied about at the time was 10 and, although there’s an escape clause if the company’s ownership structure was to change, it emerged a little more than a month later that Westland Milk had entered discussions to be sold in part, or wholly, to a Canadian company.

So they did a $10 million loan that no bank would touch, which at best will create 10 jobs but actually looks like it was to allow the company to be sold to Canadians! Go Shane.

Oh, and he was most displeased that services were also slipping for specialist waiting times, elective surgical waiting times, and those for radiology or cancer services. Most displeased indeed.
This is your periodic reminder that he abolished the reporting of those targets.

Yep David Clark abolished public reporting of health targets and then is surprised that DHBs are now failing to meet them. Dumb meet dumber.

Chris Trotter writes:

WHY CAN’T LABOUR take “No” for an answer? When the party first offered voters a Capital Gains Tax (CGT) in 2011 they responded by giving Labour 27 percent of the Party Vote. Undaunted, David Cunliffe and his team doubled-down on the CGT in 2014. Labour’s Party Vote slumped to a risible 24 percent. Point taken?

For a while it looked as though Labour’s ears had started working again. Cunliffe’s successor, Andrew Little, moved swiftly (if unilaterally) to take the twice-rejected CGT off the table. Which should have been the end of the story. But, it wasn’t. Within Labour’s caucus there remained a tight little clutch of CGT supporters who simply refused to let the policy go.

That tight little clutch: led by the current Finance Minister, Grant Robertson; which recoils in horror at the very suggestion that Labour should tax the incomes of the very wealthy without mercy; remains absolutely convinced that taxing the local dairy owner’s capital gains will produce nothing but sweetness and light. They’ve run their blue pencils through Inheritance Tax, Land Tax, Financial Transaction Tax and Carbon Tax: but in spite of its emphatic rejection in two successive elections, they continue to give their CGT the big tick.

Yep a tax on every small business owner in New Zealand is what Dr Cullen has proposed.

Cullen’s aside, properly decoded, offers up just one meaning: “This is a damn fool’s political errand, which I only accepted so that I could deliver these twerps a CGT of such breadth and bite that only a complete idiot would consider implementing it!” If that is not what it means, then we must, reluctantly, conclude that the former Finance Minister has lost his wits.

I’m don’t know the motivation behind it, but it is true that the specific CGT Dr Cullen has recommended is a dog. It will exempt foreigners trading NZ shares and exempt NZers trading foreign shares but tax New Zealanders trading New Zealand shares.

What does it say about the Prime Minister and her Finance Minister that the very first thing they did following Little’s very own “captain’s call” (inspired, presumably, by Captain Oates’ heroic, if unavailing, act of self-sacrifice at the end of Robert Falcon Scott’s doomed Antarctic Expedition) was to rush outside, pick up the discarded CGT, dust it off, and replace it reverently on Labour’s table? Clearly, Ardern and Robertson are not the sort of Gen-Xers who enjoy being told that they are wrong!

The Greens, however, are much, much worse. Co-leader James Shaw has declared that, if the 2020 General Election arrives and a CGT has not been enacted, then his party does not deserve to be re-elected. The problem which he and his party may be forced to confront is that if the CGT proposed by the Tax Working Group is enacted next year (effective in 2021) then the electorate may feel moved to give the Greens exactly what they deserve!

James Shaw has given people a great quote – if the TWG’s proposal is not implemented, he has said the Government doesn’t deserve to be re-elected.

The Herald reports:

Green Party co-leader and Climate Change Minister James Shaw spent the most of any government minister on international travel in the last quarter, according to expenses released today.
Shaw’s $73,771 Cabinet-approved travel between October 1 and December 31 last year eclipsed Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s $54,487 and Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ $49,378.
The Greens’ three ministers and under-secretary spent a total of $121,194 on international travel, $22,948 on domestic air travel, and $18,639 on surface travel. That figure includes VIP transport and the travel of their spouses and staff.

Saving the planet requires a huge amount of first class air travel it seems.

A spokesman said ministers’ air travel emissions were offset when they flew Air New Zealand or one of its Star Alliance partners.

This means that some tree planting company got some money from Air New Zealand. But you know what, those newly planted trees won’t actually soak up much in the way of carbon emissions for 30 years. And the Greens tell us that we must stop emitting now. So the hypocrisy is huge.

So how much carbon did James Shaw cause? Well according to My Climate, his trip to Poland would have been 25.1 tonnes and San Fran 12.2 tonnes. So that is 37.3 tonnes in just three months.

The average emissions per capita in the world in six, so James Shaw in three months did more emissions than six people did in a year – so his rate of “pollution” was 24 times greater.

And he says that’s all okay because he paid for 600 trees to be planted somewhere and in 30 years time they’ll have soaked it all up. Never mind that James says we’re all doomed if we’re not carbon neutral before then.